Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[discipulus]

I comprehend the counterpoints very well.

I understand them to be the opinions of people who admit to reality being a certain way.

Reality does not care if you are angry, it does not care if you love truth and are passionate about exposing the religious hypocrite.

Reality does not care how rational or reasonable you are, or how much you know about the theory of evolution by natural selection....

Reality does not care how many contradictions you have found in the bible...

Reality does not care about how or where or when you will die.

You, like the Christian, like the Muslim, like the Hindu, like your mother, like your father, like everyone you have ever cared for, will soon die and return to the earth from whence your first ancestors arose from some sort of prebiotic slime.

What little time you do exist here on this earth will be filled with ultimately meaningless and insignificant activities, a going through the motions of life so to speak. While you walk through life like a machine fulfilling its purpose in the grand scheme of a senseless cosmos, you may construct an elaborate sense of meaning to give purpose to an other wise meaningless existence and will live ultimately as one self-deceived. Fundamentally no different than the religious man who you think is self-deceived.

You die. You are no more....

Assuming atheism is true that is.....

So?

Do you really think a transparent appeal to consequence is going to sway anyone? You think that argument is novel? It is not.

No. It is not my intention to sway or convert or convince or prove anything to anyone.

I am simply stating very plainly that if each individual determines what is meaningful and what is good, and each individual dies and is no more, then certain conclusions are inevitable as a result of these facts.

[Bad Writer]

So your mission in life is to be as ambiguous as you possibly can because you don't really have anything relevant to say.

[Jackalope]

So?

Do you really think a transparent appeal to consequence is going to sway anyone? You think that argument is novel? It is not.

No. It is not my intention to sway or convert or convince or prove anything to anyone.

I am simply stating very plainly that if each individual determines what is meaningful and what is good, and each individual dies and is no more, then certain conclusions are inevitable as a result of these facts.

Yep - and I'd bet that the vast majority of us are quite aware of that. Morality and meaning are common subjects around here, and even in the absence of theistic arguments, we find plenty to discuss - because most of us care about such things.

[genkaus]

However, I see that many here are being instructed, for they seem to be somewhat ignorant of the implications of an atheistic view of reality and all that it entails.

You are the best possible example of that ignorance.

---

As I see it, when one is told that they determine for themselves what is meaningful, what is good, what is bad, what is right, what is wrong, with no one to judge them for their thoughts or actions, then you are essentially telling them they are God.

The only thing you are allowed to decide here is what you find meaningful. You cannot determine your own arbitrary and subjective standards of right and wrong or good and bad and even without a god, there are plenty of intelligent beings around to make a judgment.

When measuring time or distance in this world, we utilize standards and we can tell if a clock is keeping correct time by comparing it to the one time keeping device that is the standard by which all others are measured. If my watch deviates from the standard time keeping instrument, my watch is wrong in virtue of it not displaying the time that the standard displays.

Likewise, if I say a mile is 5,279 feet, then I am wrong in virtue of the standard telling me that a mile is not 5,279 feet, but rather, 5,280 feet.

We utilize standards, laws, rules, and those objective rules exist regardless of what our individual opinion is. You may not like the fact that it is 2:30 according to International Atomic Time and may rather wish it to be 5:30, but if the International Atomic Time is 2:30, then your opinion counts for nothing regarding the matter. It is 2:30 even if you say it is 5:30.

Try to remember this part - it'll be useful later on.

Remove the standard of morality and each individual is left to determine for themselves what is moral. We are adrift in a sea of individual opinion. None of these opinions are "better" or "worse" than any other because each individual is the determiner of what is moral. Each individual's preferences are their own standard!

How is it that this oft-refuted strawman is still floating around? Why do you think that removing your imaginary god as a standard of morality would leave morality up to individual determination?

Unless you maintain that their is some type of standard or law or rule that exists above and over the various opinions of the six billion or so that exist that you look to and compare the opinions to and say this opinion (O) is closer to meeting the standard (S) than opinion (O2).

But if you remove God, what basis do you have for saying that there exists this "objective standard" that we should judge our individual opinions by?

How, in the absence of God, can we legitimately say that action (A) is "wrong"?

The simplest and most obvious answer here is that we do it the same way we decide on the standard time-keeping device or the standard number of feet in a mile. A certain group of people - much smarter than you, by the way - should get together and come up with a set of rational moral instructions and those instructions would then be objective in the same way all the other forms of measurement are objective. And if you disagree - it'd be just your individual opinion.

But being gracious, I can grant for the sake of making my point, that there are objective moral values and duties that exist without God as the explanation. I will grant that that is true for the moment and ask:

What follows?

Some people choose to live according to these values and duties and some do not.

If each person determines what they want out of life with neither anyone above them like God to judge them, nor anyone beneath them, for we are all sons and daughters of an indifferent cosmos, then what follows??

Some people will find meaning in living in such a way as to fulfill every moral duty and obligation to their fellow man. Some people will find meaning in living in such a way as to break every moral duty and obligation to their fellow man.

Ultimately, they both......

Do you realize that the same argument is equally applicable to your International standards for time and distance?

So what if I choose to believe that there are 30 hours in a day?
So what if I determine that 1024 meters in a kilometer instead of a 1000?

What follows then? What follows if I choose to live by my individual, subjective standards of measurement instead of the universally accepted ones? What follows if more and more people start doing it?

What follows is that there is confusion and chaos that realistically affects my life. What follows is that there are consequences for not following accepted standards which I'd have to bear right here and right now.

And if you think that it doesn't matter since it "ultimately" wouldn't matter, then remember, ultimately, its not going to matter if I choose my own standards of measurement either.

[genkaus]

Ultimately, you both would be dead. That is what the word "ultimately" is alluding to.

So no, YOU would not be better off, for YOU would not exist, because YOU would be dead.

Why the hell would I care about whether or not it "ultimately" matters? "Ultimately" meaning "after I'm dead". I care about it up to the point of my death - which includes now and the foreseeable future I expect to live through. And for that period, I would be better off - objectively so.

I can be gracious to you and inform you I am not concerned about people eating poo.

In order to be charitable, I will even grant that what you say is true.

I will then ask:

So what?

Ultimately, you, and the poo eater suffer the same fate. He may die sooner than you, but he has died doing what gives him pleasure. You may have lived longer.

The problem you have here is that you assume that long life is something everyone desires like you. That simply is not the case. Some would rather go down in flames doing what they love than to flicker out like a candle.

Let me be charitable and grant that what you say is true.

So what?

You assume everyone wants to live a long life.

This is clearly incorrect. You might want to live a long life, others may like shooting heroin all day and having unprotected sex with anyone who will lay with them. These people care not for how long they live, but how much pleasure they derive while they live.

And why would their wants and desires be exempt from moral and rational judgment? They haven't died doing what makes them happy - unless being sick and diseased and in pain is what makes them happy. If "pleasure now" is their only consideration, then soon enough - as the future turns to present - "pleasure now" wouldn't be possible for them. The whole point of living according to a rational code of ethics is to choose your wants and desires such that you'd have consistent happiness over a long period of time. Therefore, for such people to ignore their own future happiness in face of current "wants and desires" is, in itself, the wrong thing to do. And that will result in them objectively having less meaning in their lives than someone who has considered that.

It is relevant to you. It is not relevant to everyone.

If they are alive, then it should be relevant to them.

Assuming someone wants to be rational. There are many that could care less about being rational, and rather, are more concerned about having pleasure.

The two are not independent. One cannot ensure pleasure without being rational about what pleases them.

I have had several friends die from AIDS as a result of them having unprotected anal sex. The risks for contracting disease are increased when one engages in anal sex among other potential negative side effects.

Those are the risks of unprotected sex - not anal sex. And the same risks go for unprotected vaginal sex. There is an easy way to remedy those risks altogether, thus removing any "potential negative side-effects" altogether.

The anus is not a reproductive organ. Any physician will tell you that. The anus and large intestine are for the removal of waste, not sexual intercourse.

Your mouth is not a reproductive organ either. Neither are breasts, feet or any number of erogenous zones on your body. And yet, they play a part in sexual intercourse. No reason why the same doesn't apply to your ass.

[discipulus]

Do you realize that the same argument is equally applicable to your International standards for time and distance?

So what if I choose to believe that there are 30 hours in a day?
So what if I determine that 1024 meters in a kilometer instead of a 1000?

What follows then? What follows if I choose to live by my individual, subjective standards of measurement instead of the universally accepted ones? What follows if more and more people start doing it?

What follows is that there is confusion and chaos that realistically affects my life. What follows is that there are consequences for not following accepted standards which I'd have to bear right here and right now.

And if you think that it doesn't matter since it "ultimately" wouldn't matter, then remember, ultimately, its not going to matter if I choose my own standards of measurement either.

Exactly!

Now you're getting it!

---

Ultimately, you both would be dead. That is what the word "ultimately" is alluding to.

So no, YOU would not be better off, for YOU would not exist, because YOU would be dead.

Why the hell would I care about whether or not it "ultimately" matters? "Ultimately" meaning "after I'm dead". I care about it up to the point of my death - which includes now and the foreseeable future I expect to live through. And for that period, I would be better off - objectively so.

I can be gracious to you and inform you I am not concerned about people eating poo.

In order to be charitable, I will even grant that what you say is true.

I will then ask:

So what?

Ultimately, you, and the poo eater suffer the same fate. He may die sooner than you, but he has died doing what gives him pleasure. You may have lived longer.

The problem you have here is that you assume that long life is something everyone desires like you. That simply is not the case. Some would rather go down in flames doing what they love than to flicker out like a candle.

Let me be charitable and grant that what you say is true.

So what?

You assume everyone wants to live a long life.

This is clearly incorrect. You might want to live a long life, others may like shooting heroin all day and having unprotected sex with anyone who will lay with them. These people care not for how long they live, but how much pleasure they derive while they live.

And why would their wants and desires be exempt from moral and rational judgment? They haven't died doing what makes them happy - unless being sick and diseased and in pain is what makes them happy. If "pleasure now" is their only consideration, then soon enough - as the future turns to present - "pleasure now" wouldn't be possible for them. The whole point of living according to a rational code of ethics is to choose your wants and desires such that you'd have consistent happiness over a long period of time. Therefore, for such people to ignore their own future happiness in face of current "wants and desires" is, in itself, the wrong thing to do. And that will result in them objectively having less meaning in their lives than someone who has considered that.

It is relevant to you. It is not relevant to everyone.

If they are alive, then it should be relevant to them.

Assuming someone wants to be rational. There are many that could care less about being rational, and rather, are more concerned about having pleasure.

The two are not independent. One cannot ensure pleasure without being rational about what pleases them.

I have had several friends die from AIDS as a result of them having unprotected anal sex. The risks for contracting disease are increased when one engages in anal sex among other potential negative side effects.

Those are the risks of unprotected sex - not anal sex. And the same risks go for unprotected vaginal sex. There is an easy way to remedy those risks altogether, thus removing any "potential negative side-effects" altogether.

The anus is not a reproductive organ. Any physician will tell you that. The anus and large intestine are for the removal of waste, not sexual intercourse.

Your mouth is not a reproductive organ either. Neither are breasts, feet or any number of erogenous zones on your body. And yet, they play a part in sexual intercourse. No reason why the same doesn't apply to your ass.

Everything you just said, I will take as your opinion, and I do heartily thank you for sharing it with me.

Even if I agreed that everything you said was somehow objectively true, it still ultimately makes not a whit of difference. You, myself, and everyone else that has ever lived share the same destiny. Yes even the serial pedophile and the worst possible person that your imagination can conjure up all share the same destiny. Your "objective values" will not preserve your life beyond the grave. And since I determine what is meaningful to me, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing because none of what you say is meaningful to me.

Your posts amount to nothing more than you telling me you like a Bic Mac and a Large Fry.

I like a Whopper with cheese and a small fry with a coke.

[genkaus]

Exactly!

Now you're getting it!

I got it way before you did.

Everything you just said, I will take as your opinion, and I do heartily thank you for sharing it with me.

Even if I agreed that everything you said was somehow objectively true, it still ultimately makes not a whit of difference. You, myself, and everyone else that has ever lived share the same destiny. Yes even the serial pedophile and the worst possible person that your imagination can conjure up all share the same destiny. Your "objective values" will not preserve your life beyond the grave. And since I determine what is meaningful to me, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing because none of what you say is meaningful to me.

Your posts amount to nothing more than you telling me you like a Bic Mac and a Large Fry.

I like a Whopper with cheese and a small fry with a coke.

Take it any way you like - it wouldn't change the fact that what I said is objectively true.

Your destiny concerns your life - not any imagined life after death. Which is why me, you or the serial pedophile do not share the same destiny. My objective values are not meant to preserve life beyond grave, they are meant to preserve life before it. And since my choice of values actually do that, they end up being more relevant and meaningful than yours. Which is why though you may choose what is meaningful to you, even then there would be a right choice and a wrong choice.

You may disregard these statements as my "opinion" the same way you may disregard reality and tell yourself that you are on first class flight to London. Everyone else, however, knows that you are just on a fast track to stupidtown.

[discipulus]

Exactly!

Now you're getting it!

I got it way before you did.

Everything you just said, I will take as your opinion, and I do heartily thank you for sharing it with me.

Even if I agreed that everything you said was somehow objectively true, it still ultimately makes not a whit of difference. You, myself, and everyone else that has ever lived share the same destiny. Yes even the serial pedophile and the worst possible person that your imagination can conjure up all share the same destiny. Your "objective values" will not preserve your life beyond the grave. And since I determine what is meaningful to me, your opinion counts for absolutely nothing because none of what you say is meaningful to me.

Your posts amount to nothing more than you telling me you like a Bic Mac and a Large Fry.

I like a Whopper with cheese and a small fry with a coke.

Take it any way you like - it wouldn't change the fact that what I said is objectively true.

Your destiny concerns your life - not any imagined life after death. Which is why me, you or the serial pedophile do not share the same destiny. My objective values are not meant to preserve life beyond grave, they are meant to preserve life before it. And since my choice of values actually do that, they end up being more relevant and meaningful than yours. Which is why though you may choose what is meaningful to you, even then there would be a right choice and a wrong choice.

You may disregard these statements as my "opinion" the same way you may disregard reality and tell yourself that you are on first class flight to London. Everyone else, however, knows that you are just on a fast track to stupidtown.

So you are telling me you believe in an afterlife where your virtuous conduct in the present world is rewarded and an afterlife where the men who break the objective moral laws you espouse are punished?

[pocaracas]

Your posts amount to nothing ...

So do yours.... so why did you come here and waste our time?

[discipulus]

Your posts amount to nothing ...

So do yours.... so why did you come here and waste our time?

Now you're getting it!! hock: